4. DISABILITY AND DISCRIMINATION:


Geraci v. Union Square Condominium Association


TAKEAWAY – An Association is not required to accept the existence of a Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) Claimant’s disability. An Association may dispute both (1) the existence of the alleged disabling condition, and (2) whether the alleged condition constitutes an impairment which substantially limits a major life activity and requires accommodation.


FACTS - An Association member, asserting that she suffered from PTSD as a result of an incident in one of the Association’s elevators involving another owner and multiple dogs, sought an accommodation. After the Association denied the accommodation, a civil action was filed. At the trial, the Association introduced expert opinion testimony that Plaintiff did not suffer from PTSD. A jury found in favor of the Association, based on a determination that Plaintiff was not disabled. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the Association could not challenge the existence of the PTSD condition which she claimed constituted a disability, and could only dispute whether -- as a matter of law -- the alleged PTSD condition constituted a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity.


COURT’S RULING - A plaintiff cannot unequivocally assert a condition under an FHA claim, allowing the defense only to argue that this condition is not an impairment. Te FHA only covers qualified individuals, such as individuals with a disability. A plaintiff under the FHA has the burden of proving the existence of a disability within the meaning of the statute. Whether the plaintiff has an impairment is to be determined by the fact finder on a case-by-case basis, and the Association was properly permitted to introduce expert opinion evidence disputing the existence of the claimed disability.


5. LIABILITY: O’Malley v. Hospital Staffing Solutions


TAKEAWAY - Ordinarily, a person has no legal duty to come to the aid of another. But if a person does come to the aid of another, and does so without exercising reasonable care, that person may be responsible for any damages caused under a “negligent undertaking” theory of liability.


FACTS - A hotel maintenance worker was dispatched to check the room of a guest, after the guest’s husband could not reach the guest by phone. Te maintenance worker claimed that he checked the room and found nothing amiss, but the guest was found hours later by her husband on the floor, suffering from a brain aneurysm.


LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RULING - Typically, the existence of a legal duty is a question of law to be decided by a judge. In this case, however, the fact-specific details of the “undertaking” to act by the maintenance worker required the jury to first resolve factual disputes before the trial court could determine whether or not the “undertaking” gives rise to an actionable legal duty.


PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO INDUSTRY - Te O’Malley decision would suggest that managers and associations could be assuming liability for harm that results from failing to fully investigate complaints or inquiries concerning matters outside the association’s defined obligations and duties under the governing documents.


6. RENTAL RESTRICTIONS:


Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Association (21 Cal. App.5th 896)


TAKEAWAY –Association was required to first seek a permit from the Coastal Commission before implementing a short-term rental ban.


FACTS – Homeowner member brought action under the Coastal Act seeking injunction against enforcement of Association STR ban, because Association had not sought approval and a permit from the Coastal Commission. Te trial court refused to grant the injunction, finding that the STR ban was not a “development” impacting use or access to Coastal Zone. Te Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Association “has not erected a physical barrier to the beach but has erected a monetary barrier.


It has no right to do so.


COURT’S RULING - Adoption of short-term rental ban by an Association located in Coastal Zone was subject to regulations promulgated by California Coastal Commission under the Coastal Act because such ban is a “development” which changes the “intensity of use” and access to land in a Coastal Zone.


20 


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32